Men, Animals, and the Scientific Method
Sam Aurelius Milam III
This article is about human male sexual behavior and two theories that might explain and predict such behavior.  One theory, advocated largely by feminists and people who have been brainwashed by them, claims that men are above the "animals", that their intelligence overrides their animal instincts, and that men can and should "just control themselves".  I call this the Feminonsense theory.  The other theory, which I modestly call Sam's Theory, claims that men cannot always control their sexual behavior but instead are often driven by it.
Let's digress for a moment and consider the scientific method.  One of its precepts deals with the evaluation of theories.  If a theory agrees with or explains the observable data or behavior and successfully predicts future events, then that theory is a candidate for acceptance.  If a theory conflicts with or fails to explain the observable data or behavior or fails to successfully predict future events, then the theory is a candidate for rejection.  Now, lets try the two above noted theories against some observed behavior.
First, the assumptions:  Bill Clinton is widely, perhaps universally, accepted as a sane and intelligent man.  He is probably above average in most of his abilities.  There isn't any reason to suppose that he is atypical with regard to his ability to "just control himself".  The question before us then, given those assumptions, is this.  Why did he get involved with Monica Lewinsky?  If the assumptions noted above are valid, then it was obvious to him at the outset that the downside of the relationship would far outweigh its benefits.  Given the noted assumptions regarding Bill Clinton, behavior consistent with the Feminonsense theory would have been to avoid the relationship.  The Feminonsense theory therefore is completely in conflict with the observed behavior.  Sam's Theory, however, is completely consistent with the observed behavior.
The other consideration is how well each theory predicts future behavior. As it happens, both theories fail.  The Feminonsense theory fails because it is inherently in conflict with normal human male behavior.  Lacking coercive manipulation of male behavior, it will never correctly predict such behavior.  Sam's Theory fails for a completely different reason.  It fails because normal male behavior has been systematically repressed by the arbitrary imposition of a plethora of regulations, legislation, and rules, all specifically intended to compel human male sexual behavior to conform to the Feminonsense theory.  I suggest that those who are unconvinced can test my claim.  First, of course, they'll need to locate an environment in which human males have the option of behaving normally, without the influence of the aforementioned restrictions, and males whose behavior hasn't already been repressed by those restrictions.  Then, they can select a test subject.  In order that his behavior not be influenced by the test itself, he shouldn't be told that he's a test subject.  After observation, which theory most successfully predicts his behavior?  For such a test to be valid, the test subject must be reasonably representative of the human male population in all applicable respects.  For example, eunuches and hundred year old monks might not exhibit normal male sexual behavior.  If the test subject is homosexual, then it would be inappropriate to test his behavior toward females.  He must be tested against other males.  You get the idea.
Remember, preconceived notions don't have any place in the scientific method.  It doesn't matter which theory is the most attractive.  Objectivity is necessary.  Which theory fits the observable behavior?  Which theory predicts future behavior?

Abolish the "Family" Courts
Sam Aurelius Milam III
The "best interest of the child" isn't the most important standard upon which to base a body of legal doctrine.  Children (future adults) are ill served if their "best interest" is used as an excuse to reduce adults to a condition of servitude.  If the "best interest of the child" results in the creation of a police state (which it has), then it would be better if children weren't protected at all.  Children are important, but liberty (mine, yours, and theirs) is more important.

Reparations?
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Occasionally, I still hear people claim that reparations are due to the present black descendants of previous black slaves.  Those claims fail on several points.  First, the reparations will not be paid by previous white slave owners, but by presently living white folks, like me.  However, I didn't kidnap anybody from Africa and force them to come here to be slaves.  Therefore, I don't owe any reparations.  Furthermore, the reparations will not be paid to the slaves, but to the presently existing descendants of those slaves.  Those descendants weren't kidnapped and brought here forcibly, so reparations are not due to them.  Their claims fail on another point.  Those black descendants of previous slaves claim that they've been harmed by what was done to their ancestors.  How's that?  Where would they be if their ancestors hadn't been kidnapped?  Maybe they'd be starving in Ethiopia, slogging through the mud in Mozambique, or dying of AIDS in Botswana.  They sure wouldn't be in America, if they existed at all.  Events that were atrocities for their ancestors have been a blessing for them.  I'm sorry that slavery happened.  We can all grieve for it and hope that it doesn't happen again.  Beyond that, I think they should count their blessings and get on with their lives.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.  If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it;  and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it;  and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. — Abraham Lincoln in a Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

True Story:  Carjacking Foiled
Original Source Unknown.  Forwarded by Sir Jeffrey the Studious
Returning from shopping, an elderly lady found four males in her car.  She dropped her shopping bags and drew her handgun, proceeding to scream at them at the top of her voice that she knows how to use it and that she will if required:  so get out of the car.  The four men didn't wait around for a second invitation but got out and ran like mad, whereupon the lady proceeded to load her shopping bags into the back of the car and get into the driver's seat.
Small problem:  Her key wouldn't fit the ignition.  Her car was identical and parked four or five spaces farther down.  She loaded her bags into her car and drove to the police station.  The sergeant to whom she told the story nearly tore himself in two with laughter and pointed to the other end of the counter, where four pale white males were reporting a carjacking by a mad elderly white woman;  no charges were filed.

Letter to the Editor
We attended a program for the kids last night at my daughter's elementary school.  It was supposed to be sort of a cultural mini-tour of three countries:  India, Ireland and Mexico.  There were tables where the kids could do artwork common in the various cultures under the guidance of parents from those countries.  [My daughter] really enjoyed it, but a couple of things happened which were disturbing to me.
The first thing [my daughter] wanted to do was to make designs on the concrete outside the building with chalk.  This activity is associated with a harvest celebration in India.  The principal (she's not from India) who was outside watching the kids kept repeating over and over again, "Just designs, no words."  Finally my curiosity got the best of me, and I asked why the kids couldn't write something if they wanted to.  Her reply, "They might write something they shouldn't," shocked me speechless, so I never did find out what sort of banned material the kids were likely to produce with their parents and principal looking on.
Later we were inside when a cop came roaring up the sidewalk to the main entrance on his motorcycle.  He stood just inside the door for a few minutes, then left the some way.  This seemed like a very unlikely place for any serious criminal activity to be going on, so what purpose could such a dramatic appearance serve?  Could it be to make kids accustomed to/tolerant of bazaar behavior on the part of cops?  Am I paranoid?

Frontiersman  479 E.  700 N.  Firth, Idaho 83236            If a kid's old enough to earn his own money, then he's old enough to decide for himself how to spend it — even on cigarettes. ------------------------------ END THE PROHIBITION.

Acknowledgments
•     My thanks to Sir Donald the Elusive and Sir John the Generous, http://www.jwebster.com/, and for their contributions.
•     My thanks to The Affiliate, http://www.the-grand-barn.com/, of Vankleek Hill, Ontario for regularly printing reviews of the Frontiersman.

Men Can Be Proud Because ...
Source Unknown — forwarded by Warren, of Pocatello, Idaho
•     Underwear is $10 a three pack.
•     If you are 34 and single, nobody notices.
•     Everything on our faces stays the same color.
•     Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.
•     We don't have to clean the house if the gas meter reader is coming.
•     Car mechanics tell us the truth.
•     We can sit quietly and watch a game with a friend for hours without worrying, or thinking, "Is he mad at me?"
•     Same work — more pay.
•     Gray hair and wrinkles only add character.
•     We can drop by and see a friend without having to bring a little gift.

Dear Sam
It's true that one cannot disprove the existence of something.  For example, are there aliens among us?  The presentation of an alien proves alien existence;  the non-presentation of an alien does not disprove alien presence.  McCarthy used this truth in saying that the government was full of communists.  No one could disprove it.  Similarly with the absence of one piece of evidence.  But this doesn't mean that other things demonstrating innocence can't be proven.  For example:  your fingerprints are on the murder weapon.  However, the murder occurred at a certain time, in a certain place, & you can prove that you were elsewhere at that time.  You have proven that your fingers were not on the weapon at the time of the crime.  Science says the non-existence of things cannot be proven.  "Innocence" is an abstraction, not in the realm of the physical things that science deals with at all.  You don't prove the non-existence of your physically scientific "guilt" — something which doesn't exist — you prove your physical fingers were not on the physical weapon at the physical time of the physical act defined by society as "crime."  This can be done scientifically.
What is wrong with the current "justice" system is that it is a rigged part of the police state establishment.  The defense lawyers, like the DA's, are part of the system.  According to Anglo-Saxon tradition, you are supposed to be judged by a jury of your "peers" — people chosen at random from the tribe or nation.  Instead, the jury is selected from the conservative establishment element — "upstanding" citizens supposedly without prejudice, but who of course have more of a vested interest bias than anyone else.  If this is not possible, because the neighborhood is so overwhelmingly working class, like the Bronx, the trial is moved to a conservative establishment bastion like Albany, with the rationalization that it is the non-bourgeois rabble without vested interests who are the more biased.  In the Bronx, one's police come in from the relatively affluent suburbs, & one must go to the relative affluent upstate to find one's "peers."  Democratic "law & order" in action.
Guilt is often established upon circumstantial evidence, so overwhelming as to be convincing "beyond a reasonable doubt."  This goes back to Anglo-Saxon tradition.  Cooperating with the police may offer an alternative explanation of circumstances where a jury would otherwise feel they were being absurdly gullible if they didn't convict.  But again, if the suspects are conservative establishment bourgeois robber-baron billionaires like the Ramseys, their "peers" are never given the chance to make that judgment.
Sincerely,